tv Sean Spicer Discusses the Presidential Transition CSPAN December 23, 2016 5:31am-6:28am EST
but it's a two-way street. and i don't think everyone in the media is bad, i don't think that every reporter is bad. but i think that in the case -- nd i welcome kerry's elevation here at politico. i think she is working hard to try to right a lot of wrongs. i think time will tell. but i do have a problem with how politico has engaged in covering politics, especially our side. i think it is tweet-happy, it click-based and devoid of facts. and i think you look for example at just today -- >> the props aren't done. >> no. >> the final batch. >> this is every story that politico has done on the rnc and g.o.p. this year. just today this is the tweet. politico. in theory, 37 could flip against trump and deny him. that is like in theory this
building could float away and go to mars. that's not journalism. and i get it's a selfie but that's not a serious thought about what's going on in the election. and i think that yesterday you had another person tweet out something unbelievabley vulgar which i won't repeat. there was no story in politico about their own employee writing and saying stuff about the president-elect of the united states. it was disgusting, reprehensible, unacceptable. and the idea -- >> let me interject. this person was reprimanded. >> but there was no coverage in politico of this. and i think that if a republican jaywalks it's a front page story. if little johnny says something inappropriate the rnc gets a phone call and sks how are we going to respond for this?
should he step down? and i think that -- there is a -- i think if you're going to engage in that that there's a similar level of responsibility that you have to hold your own eople accountable. put out a story. off media reporter. use them. but so i think i am willing to in my capacity currently at the rnc engage with reporters that want to engage in serious discussion. sometimes we're on the wrong side. and when we are we should be called out for it. but there's not one story saying something positive about the rnc. and i think that when you look at the fact that the rnc spent $175 million in data put together the best ground operation i believe in political history and everything becomes a story about what we did wrong or how we came up short. or we could have done this better. and i think at some point you've got to give us credit
for a few things here and there. or at least cover them in a more responsible way. [applause] > fair enough. >> similarly, i think that just like you said republicans make mistakes, i think reporters and news outlets make mistakes. and not only politico. across the spectrum. and you can see that probably -- >> pick up the "new york times." >> i think it's a knews organization responsibility to take responsibility. and when there's a mistake and to correct it. >> i think one of the things that's important to me is you can't put the jeanie back in the bottle. when you tweet out the headline and it says xyz, we're going to look into this. >> could i get some credit for drinking out of this? >> we're not done yet.
>> i think the problem is tweet first fix later. that's not acceptable. there are times when news is breaking and i get that. and i've lived in this world long enough that you're competing against others and i get it. fair enough but when you get it wrong, you can't go back and take away what people have seen and say how many times is something shared incorrectly? and on friday -- two days ago, there's a story that a reporter in politico put out saying shawn spicer disinviting twitter. now, first of all i would love to say i have the power to disinvite someone from a meeting with the the president-elect but i done. and they are never invited. and i was never asked by politico whether that happened. and yet i can't put that story back in the bottle and say --
and so once it's out there it's out there. that's what i think is unfortunate. is that the attempt to quickly put up headlines and be provocative is not good journalism. >> understood. could we talk about some other top yibs. >> i can keep going. >> i know you can. >> a couple hours ago president obama gave his i'm going to hawaii press conference. next year it will probably be he pre-mara lago conference. i think it's been reported that they're now in une son that they believe that russia interfered in the election. do you believe that's true?
>> i don't mean to sound -- i'm not an intel person. so i've changed my g mail many times. do i think there are hackers out there trying to do things? sure. do i think foreign governments try to probe u.s. sites government and otherwise? absolutely. china, russia. we do it, they do it. but i think the problem i have and the story narrative. this wouldn't have happened if hillary clinton didn't have a secret server. she didn't follow protocol. number two -- >> none of the hacking would have happened? >> i think a lot of the stuff s in discussion.
third, the "wall street journal" had it right. the dnc measures weren't up to snuff. they tried to probe us. a lot of political activities in the dnc. if people are mad in the democratic world they should be mad at the dnc, it department. >> you know this, because you were there before donald trump won. what do you know you guys push back against the facts that the rnc was hacked. could you explain the situation? >> there's two things that are important to know. we got a call last friday night from a couple of news -- the "washington post" and the "new york times."
clearly russia intended to influence the outcome. we didn't get hacked. then the premise is wrong and the conclusion must be faulty. so we got -- we worked with the "washington post," explained some stuff. fair enough. the "new york times" went ahead with it and now we've seen reporting from abc, cnn, and the "wall street journal" saying our system was probed but we weren't hacked. >> could you explain that? >> people throw out two terms. hacking is penetrating the system and getting in and being able too extract data.
it's successful. probing is when you're doing what's called fishing exercises. ending out faulty e-mails. when you open those that's a successful fishing attempt. and that's how they get in, which we've learned from the dnc is one of the ways they were able to hack thoot their system. so probing is just them bouncing off the system trying to find various ways to get in. like knocking on a door and window seeing which one's open. if none are open they tried to break in but they didn't enter. in the case of the dnc they found an open window and went in. that's a very different thing. one, we were told that the conclusion was based on those facts. so if the facts are not true then the conclusion must be faulty. the other thing that's interesting is that on november
17, the director of national intelligence went up to the house intelligence committee and made it very clear in open testimony that the connection to russia -- and i've got the estimony here. he said it was inconclusive that russia was behind the wikileaks. so all i'm saying is you have the dni in open testimony stating it and yet we are called to say why can't you accept this as facts? why isn't that testimony being rought in? there's a difference between them probing and affecting the outcome, and there's zero evidence that they act it had outcome. the rnc was called. we have a briefing. they said before the election,
we want to be very clear, there's no way you can hack voting machines and have an effect on the outcome. our voting systems are so disparate. there is no way you can hack or change the outcome of an election. and they were asking for our assistance to make sure that to the extent that we could help reassure the american people that we believe in the integrity of the voting system. yet you have john podesta and others going around trying to get electors to change their vote. it's ironic that it's now us on defensive with the media. [applause] that's my staff. >> let's move on. one of the things -- be a little more forward-looking. this morning you went into a
little detail about white house press operation and what it would look like under donald trump. i think you said, we have to look at everything. i don't think the briefings need to be daily. you've worked in the bush press shop. what model do you look at when you start making comments like that? >> if you think about it, that comment in terms of having them on camera was something that mike mccurry said it needs to be reexamined. it's not a question of saying this is going to happen or not but what i think in washington too often we say this is how it's always been done. let's keep it going. i think there's a healthy dialogue that can happen and say what would make these more informative? what is a better tool to have them at a more adult level as opposed to having -- and maybe they come out similar. maybe there's tweets that make them more accessible. maybe we do things to allow members of the public to ask. but for too long i think that
we've had this very stale operation which is all the mainstream media folks get front row seats and it's a question of here are the broadcast networks, here's the "washington post" and "new york times." great. but what about some of the conservative media having some of the prize seats in there? what about having some of the top bloggers being able to come in? i think that's a conversation worth having. i think there's a need to at least have the conversation and discuss it and figure out what would make things more open. for as long as you talk about transparency, let's have the discussion. >> wo would be in your front row? >> again, i haven't thought this through and it's not my front row. >> donald trump's front row. >> maybe it's a rotating pool. maybe it's first come first serve. look, all i'm saying is that there should be a conversation. it shouldn't just be like here's the status quo, let's
keep going. frankly, that's the problem of what goes on in this town, this is how it's always happened. i think what donald trump represents is the someone who says let's question, let's end business as usual, and make real change. >> speaking of that. what -- in terms of that, though, you talk about business as usual. one of the things we've all been at, weerp at the white house. >> i was not. >> surprising. [inaudible] correspondents association dinners? to be honest that's not where we're focused. i think if you look at the people and the -- he has put together a cabinet that's where the focus is. look what he did with boeing, this is a guy who focused on
getting things done, not worried about who we change is the the color of the drapes or what parties we're going to put on. he wants to put on a party for america and offer real change. but look, you can say what you want but our focus is not whether or not we're attending the the grid iron dinner. >> the role of the white house communication shop is going to be decidedly different, because donald trump has the ability and has been remarkably successful at communicating. he sends stocks all over the place when he talks about a company. what do you think when you kind of envision the next four years or six months, what do you envision? how do you envision the press shop change sng is there a changing role now that he has been successful in tweet sng >> abslueling. he's got 17.6 million people on twitter, another couple tens of millions on facebook and instagram. he has the ability like no one, not just -- no politician. but i would argue no one else,
to really effectively communicate than anybody's ever seen. i think that's a powerful tool that will be used in the presidency to communicate directly with the american people. >> so where does that leave someone like you? >> i don't think it -- again, i don't think it's a one stop shop. you don't tweet your way for four years. but it's a powerful tool. and i think he's going to use that as part of a whole arsenal of communications tools. you saw that -- there are new and evolving technologies that he has utilized whether it's facebook live or twitter, instagram, but there's a way that -- and again, this isn't about bypassing the press. it's about saying that it's not a single avenue to communicate with the american people. >> what do you think was the most effective tweet? today? that's a great question. i have not analyzed them. i think the stuff he did around
carrier was very effective. if you look at it objectively and say at the end of the day he talks about a company staying, and it's like there's a thousand people and their families who from thanksgiving and christmas now can actually breathe a sigh of relief that he did it. and i think that -- the pressure he put on them to understand how important this was was great. he means what he says and i think at the end of four years people in a lot of people -- and i notice this in the meeting the other day. aside from the people who are on his payroll, i don't think anybody in that room voted for him. but i tell you that when they walked out of that room, they were unbelieveably impressed with his desire to get things done and get it moving real quick and not take bureaucracy for an answer. > so who do you think covers rump fairly?
>> not politico. >> there's a couple of reporters here and there. but i think there's some folks at bloomberg that have done a good job. there's -- >> dot dot dot. >> i think there's some people who have written good stories from time to time. i've seen some stuff out of the wall street journal. there's a lot of folks that despite being conservative media i think have done a good job of being objective and writing straight-up stories. so -- but i've seen good packages here and there from different outlets. i think objectively there's a lot that definitely -- it's not a question -- conservetives talk about bias. it's fairness and having facts right. > one of the questions our colleagues we crowd-sourced. and one thing reporters were interested in is access tots
building. right now reporters can walk around, talk to josh if they want to. there's been talk i think during bush's administration of closing that off. is that something that you are even thinking about yet? >> i think it would be extremely premature to talk about that kind of aspect, because i don't have the authority to have that discussion. so i'm not trying to punt the question because i don't like it. it would be highly inappropriate to answer that. >> do you think access is important that they have in that role? >> sure. the question is, how do you define access? i mean, again, is it being able to walk into the press secretary's office all the time? is it access to a work space where there's key staff in i know the obama administration has been the subject of criticism from the white house press corps. i mean this -- not trying to be coy. is it as long as we get our phone calls returned? talk about access, i've talked to folks who have dealt with this in the last couple of years and there are correspondsents who only show up during key things.
so is it -- is there even a better way to have an open dialogue with folks? but i think frankly one of the things that i think is important is it's not just is the the media. maybe it is inviting more people from the public to be ama, ed and doing things, doing facebook live town halls, twitter town halls. where you're actually involving the public in the discussion and not just limiting it and saying the only people who can ask members of the white house are members of the press corps. >> do you think press conferences are important? >> sure they are. of course. i think interaction with the press is a healthy part of democracy. >> you've been around d.c. for a while. you've seen a lot of press secretaries in the white house, in the bush white house in which you worked, in the obama white house, and there's different styles. ari fleischer was an aggressive press secretary. that's how he was seen, a pretty combative aggressive
sharp guy. someone like jay carney was seen a little more laid back. your boss rendered his opinion on josh ernest last night in an unexpected twist of a speech. talk us through like what you think is an effective strategy for somebody in that role. >> i think one of the thing that is -- and you know this, is that there's this west wing in the show. as you know, 95% is off camera helping the the press get the answers to what they need. i think the best thing that a press -- not just a press secretary but a press shop can do is make sure that they are aggressively getting the facts and figures out and shaping stories, working with reporters to get it right. if we don't get the facts out it's bad on us.
i think it is incumbent upon any press shop to make sure that they are educating and informing reporters. one of the things when i speak to the groups, they say don't put secretary in press secretary. too many times people will say i got a call from someone at politico. and i had them call that person back. that's what a secretary does. did you educate the reporter? have you read this study that got put out? . here's why we think this is an important decision. or here's why i think sometimes the narrative isn't correct. have you done your job to work with a reporter to inform them to the best of your ability? if you've done that and that's the healthiest thing that a press shop can do, make sure that we are getting the facts, figures and story out to the best of our ability. >> how do you see your role? you've had combative exchanges
with people. is that the role the kind of the kind of fighting back, is that how you see? >> it depends. if the there's a conversation and it's a true conversation with the reporters, i'd like to do a story on that, tell me what you think about this, what do you have? are there folks that can walk me through this? at the end of the day we come out and don't like the story, that's one thing. i think too often the phone call i get is can you give me a quote? we're writing a story that says the following. that's not journalism. i'm not going to hand over quotes to legitimatize a story that attack us. i think that's where i have the problem and i will go aggressively at a reporter. that's not reporting. that's just collecting and cutting and pasting. and i think that's the problem too often where i need a quote, my deadline is in ten minutes. well, all we're doing is adding legitimacy to a cut-and-paste exercise. [applause]
>> that's your staff again. >> there's a couple politico reporters. >> let's talk about your role now. so you've been at the rnc since 2011? >> yes. >> a long time. >> it's a long time. >> tell us about -- and you've now been up in new york, 111 ights at marriott. what is your -- describe your -- tell us about your interactions with trump. how does he consume media? what's he like behind the scenes? >> i've always believed that the more people that can get to know him, the better. he is unbelieveably caring and gracious. and you laugh, but you look at the people that have been around him at trump tower, organizations, 10, 20, 30 years. not just trump tower. he takes a very personal interest in people's lives.
and i don't want to get into it but i will just say that he has done that with me as well, where he will call and check on you, el show concern, and i know the exterior sometimes is a tough guy that a successful businessman. but he has got a true concern about not just the people around him but when you're in meetings with him, potential cabinet secretaries, business leaders, his constant question is how do i get that done? he is so motivated to make things better and -- for this country. it is something that frankly escapes the narrative that's out there. and it is something that i wish more people could see on a one-on-one bachese. >> you bring up an interesting question. why don't people see that? >> there's something that -- that town halls and the families. i think there are consistently more opportunities that we're looking for to do that. but it is just a side of him
that i think as president -- and a lot of times he doesn't want -- he doesn't -- as much as he is in the camera, there's a lot of moments that he wants in private, where he wants to have a discussion with a family that's going through tough times or someone who has experienced a loss. and as much as he appreciates the spotlight, he has a very private side to him that is very, very underknown, if you will. >> tell us about your story. you're in front of the cameras a lot. people know your public persona. you're from rhode island. you kent to connecticut college and got a master's at the naval war college. what's your washington story? >> i was a japanese language -- i was going to be a -- >> do you speak japanese? >> no. that's where the story ends. >> so you were a japanese language -- >> i went to college and i thought it was in the early 90s
-- well, i went to college in the late 80s. japan was coming on the scene as an economic power house. i grew up in a very, very working class family. i -- my parents struggled to help put me through chedge. and i thought, i could make money if i learn japanese, i had an interest in the commi, i was the kind of kid that was constantly selling something, greeting cards, all that stuff get rich quick, every neighbor was like, what are you selling now? but -- and so i went for the first couple of years, an hour-and-a-half every morning. go to the language lab at night. i didn't enjoy it. and i took a government class and i had done a little of this in high school. and i really felt chal owninged. i enjoyed the discussion about the role of government and politics. and i felt energized and started volunteering on
campaigns. then in 1994, i was hired to run one of the field office operations. 54 towns and cities. we lost by two votes on election night. for the down here house ways and means committee. we had just taken over congress. works at night doing research. we used to do this thing called coding. go through the record and type it in to a doss database and get 75 cents per article. i worked from 4:00 until midnight. in a basement that is now a gym. and then did everything i could to get a job in the press. finally, everyone kept saying, you'd be really good at that but you have no experience.
>> the irony. >> it was. it was a catch 22. hope that wasn't my cup. >> the back. >> it didn't break. >> of course it won't. you can knock us over, but we're not breaking. >> i knew that was coming. >> bottom line is, there was finally a pollster i'd been affiliated with who called me and said, hey, there's a race in western pennsylvania. he said, the guy's in a primary, he's probably going to lose the primary. do you want to do it? i'm like, yep. so i moved to washington, pennsylvania, to work for a guy out there. a guy named larry welsh. he dropped out of the primary right before. but at the time, this is important, then i was -- for whatever it was, three months then, a campaign manager and a press secretary. >> all of a sudden you got the title. >> another pollster who had
been affiliated with the media consultant said, hey, lobiondo is running for re-election in new jersey 2. he's looking for a campaign manager. i said, i'm a campaign manager. just happened to be free. that kicked off. so then i think i worked now for 11 different members of congress. we enjoy the hunt. i love the press piece of this. i think one of the things that i like is that at the end of the day, you either got the story, you know, killed or got it to come out the way you wanted it. or you got crushed. but you know every single day where you stand. did that package come out the way you wanted it? did you shape the story, did you lose? so you can have good days and bad days. every day you're fighting out there. i think -- and that's -- it is -- you can be a legislative assistant and sometimes work for a decade to have an amendment passed in an omnibus. but i think -- and for a lot of people that's their passion. they want that to happen. i just can't wait that long. mr. sherman: you talk about press access.
one of the things that the trump campaign gained notoriety for and was criticized for was banning reporters, banning outlets. politico was one. you said, i think, that you're not -- that's not going to happen. mr. spicer: there's a big difference between a campaign, where it is a private venue using private funds and a government entity. i think we have a respect for the press when it comes to the government. that is something that you can't ban an entity from. conservative, liberal or otherwise. that's what makes a democracy a democracy versus a dictatorship. i think there's a vastly different model when it comes to government and what should be accepted. that's on both sides. ms. palmer: talk about that interaction. the press corps and the trump campaign has had kind of contentious relationship. as far as the press pool,
you guys started to work a little bit more collaboratively? mr. spicer: yeah. you're seeing that. i think it is, you know, we've got a press pool that travels with him now. mr. sherman: alongside him, not with him. mr. spicer: right. ms. palmer: which is unprecedented. mr. spicer: i don't know where you'd sit on the plane. the back compartment is secret service. he's in the middle. but to the extent that we have brought the press along, i think part of it too is that there's a balance. i think all you hear from the press is, we want, we want, we want. i think there's a balance between you're there, you're available to see certain things, but i get it, you want to see everything and you want to be in every meeting. i'd like to be in some of your meetings. it's a two-way -- as you know, you go, ok, that's not -- so, i think when it comes to government access, that's one thing versus what happens in a private entity. mr. sherman: how voracious of a media consumer is trump?
mr. spicer: i think very. you see it in terms of how he reacts. he watches a lot. he reads a lot. obviously he's on twitter quite a bit. but i think, look, i do think that on its whole, you look at the coverage that he gets and honestly, a lot of times it's hit first and ask later. it is not on balance fair. there are hits that he takes that are just -- it is constantly -- there's almost no end to what he could do to satisfy the press corps in terms of knowledge and information. there's a point at which nothing is good enough. mr. sherman: one of the things that -- let's talk about some of those hits. why not? the drain the swamp message. he talked about draining the swamp. his cabinet is made up, and these are people who have objectively impressive careers, but he ran his final ad about a
global financial conspiracy, and then has filled his cabinet with several people from wall street. again, that's not passing commentary on wall street, but if you match what he said in the campaign and you match what he's doing now, do you think those -- mr. spicer: but just because you work somewhere doesn't mean, like, for example, you take a guy like rex tillerson. the guy grew up and started working at age 8. he lived in a house that had one bedroom. he slept on the couch until he went to college. he's now head of exxon. you want to talk about a guy who knows success, who knows what it's like to be dirt poor, who now knows what it's like to be successful and work hard every day, and you look at the countries, the work that they're doing. he's unbelievably qualified. he brings a perspective that is so outside the box. but yet the focus is on his net worth. it's not a question of -- it's not like all these people -- mr. sherman: i didn't ask about his net worth. mr. spicer: i think the problem i have is it always becomes a question of how much are they
worth, not what are they qualified to do. mr. sherman: i'm asking specifically about the disconnect between what he campaigned on -- mr. spicer: that's what i'm getting at. these people are committed to his agenda. they're not coming in, saying, thanks for the job, i'm going to go off and do what i want to do. you understand in a trump administration that you are there to advance his agenda and to get things done. believe me when i tell you, if you don't get things done, he's going to replace you. mr. sherman: how long does someone have to get things done? mr. spicer: it depends. he wants to hit the ground running. i don't think it, i know it. he wants to bring real change right away, day one. and that means getting things done, focusing on the economy, getting job creation, reducing regulation. those things are going to happen day one. mr. sherman: how long will it take to replace obamacare? mr. spicer: part of that depends on what can be done by executive order and what has to be done legislative and statutory-wise. ms. palmer: we are almost out of
time. we do want to ask you about your role, obviously you've been here at the rnc for a long time, there's a lot of speculation that you will be the next press secretary. we'll have the pleasure of dealing with you more in that role. is that something you're looking forward to? you are hoping to do? [laughter] mr. spicer: i appreciate the speculation. there has been no announcement. and i honestly made this. until the president-elect makes a decision on any position, and you've seen this with some of the cabinet, you never get ahead of him. he makes the decisions and he's not made his decision. ms. palmer: you have met with him about it, though? mr. spicer: no. mr. sherman: when you say that, that's actually interesting, anna and i, always in writing playbook with daniel and think about when we see speculation about cabinet secretaries that come out that are wrong, does that mean that he made a decision and that his decision changed? mr. spicer: no. it means a lot of -- i think what happens in this process is
that there are people who come in and make the case, either the potential candidate or members of the staff, and believe he's going in a certain direction. i've never once seen him change his mind. it's that people believed he had made a decision based on some reading of the tea leaves. but until he says hit send on that, it's not final. mr. sherman: you think it's just speculation, people saying -- mr. spicer: i know it is. mr. sherman: he reacted positively about something and they took something away from that? mr. spicer: yes. mr. sherman: that's people on your staff. mr. spicer: or the potential job candidate who's come in and believes that because of some sort of facial tick or, hey, that means this. [laughter] mr. spicer: but, no. until he makes a decision, it's not final. mr. sherman: we have two questions. one, i'll ask. one, anna will ask. you are known at the rnc, you are in the navy reserves. you are known for wearing your uniform. mr. spicer: that's not true. mr. sherman: you don't wear your
uniform? mr. spicer: no. when i have returned from the pentagon, i have come in and taken it off. there is a clear delineation between anything i've ever done for the navy and any type of political work. mr. sherman: ok. mr. spicer: have i walked into the office coming out of a garage? absolutely. have i changed immediately? yes. mr. sherman: ok. fake news number one. this is real news. ms. palmer: this is the most pressing question -- your friends -- mr. sherman: we didn't know this until today. ms. palmer: i got several emails about this. there's one question that everyone has been asking us to ask you. mr. spicer: ok. ms. palmer: will you reprise your role as the easter bunny at the white house as you did when you worked under the bush administration, and -- mr. sherman: let him explain this. mr. spicer: no decision has been made on the easter bunny. [laughter] ms. palmer: tell us about the easter bunny. how did it get started? mr. sherman: give us the back story here. mr. spicer: that's one i'll definitely press him for. [laughter]
mr. spicer: i've been at ustr. my wife, who is in the audience, was at the white house at the same time. i said, you know, how does one become the easter bunny? she said, sara armstrong is the head of the visitor's office and she decides. really? i emailed her and said, can i do the easter bunny? are you serious? i said, yeah. how cool would that be? she's like, yes. i said, can rebecca be the handler? she is like, yes. i will tell you all though that , the same costume that you see has been around i think since kennedy. mr. sherman: you're kidding me. mr. spicer: let's just say it need as little dry cleaning. you're going to want to get in early when you're the white house chief. the early morning shift is where it's at. because i will tell you, once the sun comes out, it is not the place to be.
mr. sherman: we will leave it on that i think. ms. palmer: yes. thank you so much. mr. spicer: happy birthday. ms. palmer: for coming here. [applause] ms. palmer: coming to play. we appreciate your candor. and we want to thank all of you here in the audience and in live stream for joining us and thank you again to bank of america for their continued partnership of the playbook series. this is our last one of the year, so stay tuned for 2017. please stick around. there's cocktails, hors d'oeuvres, and we'll be around to talk to people. have a great evening. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indistinct conversation]
>> but right now, the secretary designates are not having meetings. i will try to have somebody from one of the landing teens maybe -- [indiscernible] >> economic development and creation. >> i will make sure i touch base. good to meet you. >> i really enjoyed that. >> thank you. >> i'm with the bbc. state department correspondent. i thought i would say hello. >> and rachel with "the daily caller." >> hey, how are you? curious, wapo now agrees
with the cia. what did the cia actually [indiscernible] >> question is right. it is a lot of here's what they say. i have not seen any -- >> people are using this to judge the -- [indiscernible] the primary goal is to elect trump. >> and what i'm saying to your first question, it is a lot of this is what sources say and this is what we are hearing. at some point, there is an obligation to be very clear. >> have you heard from anyone that would actually know -- >> no, sorry. >> thank you. >> edie watson, also with "the daily caller." >> how are you? >> good, how about yourself? >> good. >> would you hope the
-- what do you hope the administration will do in the coming years? >> it is not just being transparent, but letting more people be involved or too often, we have focused on just sort of the key mainstream media types. they are a great part of a healthy media but there are a lot more ways to involve the public to participate in this democracy. >> thank you. >> i'm a freelance writer. i am so curious. do you think that major communities are going to try to portray mr. trump in the most negative way in terms of his entire administration? mr. spicer: there are some who won't give him a break. it depends on the individual reporter. i don't want to equally paint everyone with the same broad brush, but some reporters are
fairer than others. >> thank you so much. >> [indiscernible] >> you are amazing. you're doing a good job. mr. spicer: thank you. [laughter] mr. spicer: thank you. >> [indiscernible] mr. spicer: ok, thank you. >> nice to meet you. mr. spicer: thank you. [laughter] >> [indiscernible] mr. spicer: thank you. >> a parking ticket? >> know, like a -- [indiscernible]
>> follow the transition of government on c-span. as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress, we will take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on-demand at c-span.org, or our free c-span radio app. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, samuel morrison to talk about the process president obama underwent when selecting the 78 pardons and commuting the sentences of 153 prisoners, the most ever issued by a president in a single day. and kathryn cramer, political
science professor will discuss her book which examines the evolution of rural resentment of the so-called liberal elite, and how that dynamic played out in wisconsin with the rise of scott walker. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell spoke with bill goodman about the 2016 election and what to expect in the next congress and the trump administration. 121 is courtesy of k et. one to one is courtesy of ket. mr. goodman: welcome to "one-to-one."
on this final and special edition, i will sit down with a man who has had a pretty good year. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is in control of the senate. republicans rule the house and the oval office and the kentucky senate and, for the first time in 91 years, flipped the state house of representatives to a republican majority. happy holidays, senator mcconnell. he is next on "one to one." ♪ mr. goodman: senator, welcome to your 14th appearance on "one to one." undoubtedly a ket record. senator mcconnell: you were listing all the wonderful things that happened from a republican point of view in 2016. the only thing you left out, my wife is going to be in the cabinet. secretary of transportation. >> we will get to that.
senator mcconnell: before we get going, i want to thank you for doing a great job for these many years. you handled the debate in my last election. did it flawlessly and objectively. wish you well in your new gig. mr. goodman: thank you, sir. take us back just a few weeks to november 8 and a telephone call you got on the evening of the election from now speaker elect jeff hoover. can you reenact what that call meant to you and what it meant to mr. hoover? senator mcconnell: i was at the national republican senatorial committee building in washington. i thought we had a pretty good chance of taking the statehouse after all of these years. never thought we would get 64. i thought that was probably the last celebration i was going to have that night, because we found that out around 8:30, 9:00 at night. i honestly thought we would not hold the u.s. senate. i thought we would come up short. and i did not think president trump had a chance of winning,
so i figured that was my last celebration, 8:30 at night. an exciting development for republicans who feel like we have a better agenda for the future of the state than the one that was constantly killed in the state house of representatives. even though it is not part of my job, i have had a long-standing interest in helping those guys when i could, and i played some role in that. it is indeed a new day in kentucky. and we will see whether a very different kind of agenda can move our state into the future. mr. goodman: is there any way to compare the emotion of holding the u.s. senate and president trump's victory and this statehouse victory now? on a scale, it would seem like -- senator mcconnell: given my expectations, doubly exciting because i thought we would come up short on the senate. we had a lot of exposure -- 24, members and the democrats only had 10. a lot of them were very difficult states for us in presidential years.
that was really something. but it never occurred to me that he might be able to win as well. that gives us an opportunity to, you know, through his appointment to change the court system, to move the country in a more, i think, more competitive direction. try to deal with the excessive regulation, other things that have kept the economy underperforming. so, it was really exciting because i think you get more excited when things you do not expect occur. mr. goodman: you said after the election this was a comeback for rural america. senator mcconnell: yeah. i think there are an awful lot of people in rural america, and white, working-class people in larger states like michigan and wisconsin and pennsylvania who look at the democrats these days and say they are a party of groups. this group and of that group. i am not in any of those groups. what about me?
i think a lot of people felt they were no longer part of the democratic party's view of what was important in america. and so, it was, and then if you look at the rural areas, the stunning margins of victory. i mean, not that republicans would not have carried a state like kentucky anyway, but hillary clinton only got 32% of the vote. only carried louisville and lexington. in west virginia -- she only got 27% of the vote. i think there was a lot of feeling among ordinary people all across the country that the current administration did not care about them. and trump was able to convey , oddly enough a message from a billionaire who lives in manhattan, a genuine concern for people who felt kind of left out.
who were sort of offended by all the political correctness they see around them, and did not feel like this was the america they were accustomed to. all of that kind of came together. i thought the most extraordinary thing about trump's victory, the pollsters were correct. hillary clinton won the popular vote. what was amazing about trump's victory was he pierced the blue wall, and i have not seen a republican kerry in a very long carry in aublican very long time pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan. you have to go back to 1988, the last time we carried pennsylvania. 1984 almost does not count because reagan was carrying 49 out of 50 states, a landslide. the last time a republican presidential candidate carried michigan and wisconsin. he carried massachusetts that day so would almost does not count. he was able to break through and